£^58 
.3 



;8<4'3 



UUUCJCDTaJ I 



Comenrttton ReMMiwtt 



i^OYAL PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 

863 BROAD^VAY, NE"W YORK 
No. 35. 

T HE 



ARGUMENTS OF SECESSIONISTS 



S. 



LETTER TO THE UNION MEETING, 



Held in New York, September 30, 1863. 



BY FRANCIS LIEBER. 




Wcto Yort: 
HOLMAN, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER, COR. OF CENTRE AND WHITE STS. 

1863. 



\y 



.■3 



*► 

f 



L E T T E R 



xjisrioisr meetiistg 



Gentlemen,— I regret that your invitation to address the 
citizens who will assemble to-morrow evening for the purpose of 
ratifying the nominations for our approaching State elections, 
came to hand so late that previous engagements make it impossi- 
ble for me to accept it. I should otlierwiso have felt great pleas- 
ure in contributing my humble share to the important meeting. 

The State elections which will soon take place in Ohio, Penn- 
sylvftnia. New York, and other portions of our imperiled country, 
arc of the last importance with reference to the issue of our great 
war, to the character of our foreign relations — now of a magni- 
tude to which they have never before attained — and to the serious 
condition of affairs within the different Nortliern States. 

The arguments urged against us in our present struggle, mani- 
fold as they are, may be reduced to the following main points : 

Secession, it has been urged, is revolution ; it is a struggle for 
independence ; and what right have you, whose entire govern- 
ment and national existence are founded on the idea that there 
exists such a thing as a right of revolution, according to which a 
new government may be established — what right have you to 
resist the South if its people choose to establish a separate polity ? 
All my friends who return from Europe tell me that this is the 
ever-repeated argument dinned in tlie ears of Northerners travel- 
ing in that portion of the globe. This argument sounds, indeed, 
as if separation, without any reference to the reasons or objects, 



were justifiable, simply because it is separation, aa though disin- 
tegration of itself were a valuable thing. The lopping off a 
branch from a noble tree might as well be recommended, because 
it is lopping off. Is ruthless destruction more commendable than 
organic cohesion? The South do not fight for independence, as 
the British statesman pronounced it at the earliest stage of our 
civil war, for the very simple reason that the South never was 
dependent ; on the contrary, it has always predominated. There 
is not a single point of resemblance between our Revolution and 
the rebellion of the South. Take our Declaration of Independ- 
ence, go through the reasons given tliere for our separation from 
Great Britain, one by one, and it will be found that not a solitary 
one is claimed or could be claimed by the South against us. We 
formed distant colonies, and all large transmarine colonics are 
destined, in tlie course of history, to form, at some period or other, 
independent empires. Who doubts it of New South Wales? 
The South formed no distant dependency of ours ; no sea sepa- 
rates it from us ; but, on the contrary, it forms part and parcel of 
one great continuous country, marked as one by the dignified 
geography of our land and the many uniting rivers, as well as by 
the history of the people, and of their better institutions. Our 
fathers separated from England, after long hesitation, on the 
solemnly-avowed ground of liberty. They considered themselves 
oppressed ; they believed all men entitled to certain rights. The 
South separates on the avowed ground of Slavery. That word, 
idolized by them, and turned away from with bitter aversion by 
all other men, is inscribed on their banner. There you read in 
red letters, Slavery, our Corner-Stone. 

Mr. Chevallier, in his last pamphlet, states, among many other 
absurdities, that the North has no ideas, but the South gallantly 
fights for ideas. If we are void of ideas, what then induced the 
many hundred thousand of our brethren and sons to march, bat- 
talion after battalion, to confront the enemy ? But even if we 
were very paupers in ideas, would an empty head not be better 
than a brain that has but one idea, and that one idea Slavery ? 
I make free to say to our Galilean censor, and Imperial Senator, 
that ideas have no value of themselves. Every thing depends 
upon whether the ideas are pure or vicious, Avise or foolish, great 
or little. A burglar has also his very distinct idea, for which he 



works sedulously, ingeniously, and sometimes heroically ; but 
somehow or otlier, wc do not like his idea, and try to stop it, and 
to substitute for it another idea, such as Sing Sing, or Auburn. 

Yet, even were it otherwise, is it then wholly forgotten that a 
revolution implies two parties, who must fight it out ; and we, the 
one of the interested parties, must be acknowledged to have the 
right of saying No ? If it were not so, there would ])C no revolu- 
tion. We fight iu this, our trying struggle, cmpliatically for our 
own. We fight for the integrity of our country, of which Louis- 
iana or Georgia belongs to me, as citizen of the United States, 
quite as much as to any Georgian or Louisiana man ; and I have 
a right as well as tlie duty to fight for it as much so as a French- 
man would have to fight for his France should Languedoc declare 
itself independent on some unlucky day. 

But say others, and it is sad to observe there are many Northern- 
ers of great notoriety among them, we have no right to fight the 
South, inasmuch as they, being sovereign States, had a sovereign 
right to secede. We deny it. We maintain that the word sov- 
ereignty applied to our States has merely slipped into our political 
language — merely slipped in, and much mischief has it done. The 
Constitution does not contain the word once from beginning to 
end. Let us, however, for argument's sake accept this position. 
Either the South had a perfect right to secede, or it had no such 
right. If the latter, we are of course right in fighting for our 
Government, for Law, and Country ; and if the South had a right 
to secede, why then they constitute a sovereign nation, and we, 
being a sovereign nation too, have, according to all law of na- 
tions, the right of conquering another sovereign nation. 

Again, it is said that in fighting against the South we fight 
against the first of all American principles, namely, that which 
ascribes the foundation and essence of all true and good govern- 
ment to the consent of the governed. Mr. O'Sullivan, a New 
Yorker, I am grieved to say, calls this principle "Americanism," in 
a pamphlet, of which a large number has been sent from England 
to the United States, to convert those who stubbornly resist the 
South. It is a very sad production, yet not without its humor. 
Thus Mr. O'Sullivan urges upon every patriot in the North the 
duty of repudiating our own debt, and of assuming the debts of 
the South. But to leave the jocose part of the pamphlet, the pam- 



6 

plileteer declares that every Northern Democrat is in duty bound 
to acknowledge the right of the South to establish a government 
on the consent of the governed. "Americanism" is not exclu- 
sively American. The Netherlauders pronounced it long ago, and 
we ask has this principle reference to the foundation of a govern- 
ment and the permanent enacting of laws, or to each case in which 
government acts? Far the greater portion of all business which 
a government has to perform, consists in making certain people 
do what they do not consent to. If a policeman collars a pick- 
pocket, must he let off the offender in all cases in which the criminal 
does not consent to be collared, which I suppose would form the 
majority of cases? 

Lastly, I would mention the argument of sentimentality. The 
Southerners are our brethren, we are told — let us not imbrue our 
hands in the blood of our brethren, even if they are erring ones. 
A cut-throat is our brother, too, before the Most High, who alone 
can distinguish which of us is essentially the greatest sinner, weigh- 
ing education, temptation, and want ; but this does not prevent a 
Judge from sentencing him if duly convicted. Blood is a sad 
thing, but it can not always be prevented, nor is it the worst thing. 
The sentimentality argument seems so futile that it would not have 
been referred to, were it not very frequently used by our peace 
men, who in truth ought to call themselves piece men, for what 
they drive at, or what the adoption of their measures would surely 
lead to, is the hewing and hacking of our country to pieces. 

Let us put our utmost zeal to our coming election, so that, 
among other things, the draft be carried out fairly, fully, and hon- 
estly. It is necessary, and becomes the more urgently so, the 
nearer we draw to the end ; for we must fill up our regiments 
gallantly thinning before the enemy, and we shall stand in need 
of a large army for the period when the country shall pass from 
the state of tumultuous rebellion to returning and supported peace 
and order. 

The flattering violence with which I have occasionally been 
assailed, might induce some people to believe that my authority 
must be of some weight. I am far from claiming it, but I ask, 
nevertheless, permission to state, in conclusion, that in my delib- 
erate opinion the draft is constitutional, legal, and necessary ; 
that England has never given up the right of drafting, and ab- 



stains from making use of it only for foreign wars — not, however, 
upon any constitutional grounds ; that every great people must 
resort to drafting in large and prolonged wars, unless the Prus- 
sian system be adopted, according to which every man, without 
exception, is obliged to serve, and does serve, even in times of 
peace, for a limited period ; that no nation is worthy of the name 
that can not stand a draft in times of emergency ; nor can it main- 
tain its position among the great and leading nations of the earth 
if it can not, on occasion, furnisii its government with an army 
proportionate to its own greatness ; and that, lastly, a foreigner 
by birth, who comes to this country to enjoy its material advant- 
ages and the freedom she bountifully grants to all, natives or 
adopted, makes an inadequate return for these benefits Avhen, in 
times of need, he disclaims the duty of fighting for these benefits, 
and throws away the right and privilege to fight for her. 

Witli my best wishes for the success of your meeting. 

Your very obedient, 

Francis Lieber. 

New York, Sept. 29, 1863. 

Loyal League>, Clubs, or individuals, may obtain any of our 
Publications at the cost price, by application to the Executive 
Committee, or by calling at the Rooms of the Society, No. 863 
Broadway, where all information may be obtained relating to tiie 
Society. 



^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 326 485 7 ^ 



CooMrvadoii Rcmnvccs 
Uc-Frec* Type I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



OOOSBEbHaS? 



